[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 26984-26990]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I am here to 
speak for the Progressive Caucus, to talk about the Progressive 
Message.
  Tonight, before I begin, I just want to say that my heart is sick and 
broken for the horrible tragedy that occurred at Fort Hood, and I ask 
all Americans to keep the families in their prayers and in their 
thoughts.
  I now will proceed with the hour.
  Tonight is the Progressive Message, we are here to talk about a 
progressive message for America, a message that says the human and 
civil rights of all people must be respected; a message that says 
dignity of people, regardless of their race, class or religion must be 
respected; a dignity that says that if 36 other countries in the world 
can provide universal health care coverage for their citizens, how come 
the richest country in the world, not only the richest country in the 
world but the richest country in the history of the world, can't do it.
  Why do we have 50 million people who are not covered? Why do we have 
a doubling of premiums for the people who do have health care coverage? 
Why do we have people being excluded for a preexisting condition? Why 
do we have these things?
  Well, the time for those things to end is now. We are within grasp of 
major health care reform and no scare tactics, no fear-mongering, no 
stretches of the facts are going to change that.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite upset about 
the present state of affairs because they know that Americans want 
health care reform. They want health care reform, and I believe they're 
going to get it.
  I want to say that I have spent these last several weeks talking 
about the problem. I have also spent many days discussing the 
Democratic bill, and I will do so tonight.
  But I want to spend a little time talking about what our friends on 
the other side of the aisle are proposing in their bill because, ladies 
and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, we haven't heard much detail from the 
Republican side of the aisle. We haven't heard much at all, but they 
recently put forth an outline of a plan, an outline of a plan, not a 
plan, but just sort of like an outline of one, and it's not good.
  It was always convenient to just bang, bang, bang on what the 
Democrats were proposing, but now that America has said, okay, you guys 
don't like what the Democrats are calling for, what have you got? And 
their answer was less than satisfactory.
  Under the GOP health plan--I don't believe it's been introduced as a 
bill yet; it's just sort of a plan--people with preexisting conditions 
would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage 
under the GOP plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with 
a stable funding source. This is Roll Call, November 4, 2009. Check it 
out. Under the Republican plan, most States already have such plans but 
typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not 
made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured. Also from Roll Call.
  A key piece of earlier Republican drafts, tax credits that would help 
people afford insurance, was rejected by the House minority leader as 
too expensive. Also Roll Call, November 4.
  The Republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket costs, 
which means bankruptcy for some. But let me quote from the Roll Call 
article: The Republican measure has no limits on annual out-of-pocket 
costs, nor does it provide any direct assistance for uninsured people 
to buy insurance.
  So how are we going to deal with the uninsured problem, which you and 
I pay for anyway?
  The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, has said on Wednesday that 
an alternative health care plan put forward by House Republicans would 
have, quote, little impact in extending health care benefits to roughly 
30 million uninsured Americans. This is from the New York Times.
  Do you mean to tell me after all this attacking of the Democrats' 
proposal, the Democratic plan, that the Republicans have just bashed 
us, week after week, day after day, hour after hour, minute after 
minute--oh, it's bad, bad, bad, and that's all you ever hear is 
``no''--they finally come up with their idea and they're going to leave 
30 million people uninsured?
  This has got to be April Fool's Day come early. The Republican bill 
has no chance of passage, because Americans really don't want it, 
because if they did, we would be talking about it. But I quote again 
from the New York Times: The Republican bill, which has no chance of 
passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 
the year 2019.
  Why aren't they embarrassed? I have no idea. The Republican bill, 
which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to 
about 3 million people by 2019, and, continuing to quote, would leave 
52 million people uninsured. The budget office said, meaning the 
proportion of nonelderly Americans with coverage would remain about the 
same as it is now, roughly at 83 percent.
  Let me read it again. The proportion of nonelderly Americans with 
coverage would remain about the same as now, about 83 percent, meaning 
that we have upwards of 16 to 17 percent who don't have insurance.
  Going along with the Republican plan, the Republican plan tonight, as 
we are discussing the Progressive Message, we're just going to talk 
about their plan since they got real expert talking about ours, we're 
going to let the American people know the real facts about the 
Republican plan. This is not a criticism or an attack on any individual 
member of the party apposite. I regard that they are honorable people, 
but we have to talk about their

[[Page 26985]]

plan because it's not a good one. And the reason they haven't been 
bragging about it is because not even they are proud of it.
  The Congressional Budget Office umpires say the House Republican 
health plan would only make a small dent in the number of uninsured 
Americans. Let me say that again. According to the Associated Press 
article on November 4, 2009, Congressional Budget umpires say, quote, 
the House Republican health plan would make only a small dent in the 
number of uninsured Americans.
  Wait a minute. I thought that they had some great plan. How can you 
not make a dent in the number of uninsured Americans and still claim 
you have a good plan? Their plan is an embarrassment. They're not 
bragging about it because they, themselves, know that it's far more 
strategic to just bash away on the Democratic plan rather than talk 
about their own plan, which is nothing but status quo and keep 
insurance companies making lots and lots and lots of money. That's what 
it's all about--protect the wealthy and let everybody else do the best 
they can with what they got.
  Let me go to another important quote: Late Wednesday, last night, a 
bill that Republicans expect to offer as an alternative to the 
Democratic package received its assessment from the congressional 
budget analysts who concluded that the proposal wouldn't do anything to 
help reduce the ranks of the uninsured. The CBO said some people would 
see higher premiums, including older and sicker people.
  This is the Republican plan? Here is one. The CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of 
legal nonelderly residents won't have health care in 2010. That's a lot 
of people. Seventeen percent of legal nonelderly residents won't have 
health care insurance in 2010. That's an indictment of the status quo, 
which the Republicans support.
  But, in 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, the CBO 
estimates that it will still be stuck at 17 percent of the legal 
nonelderly residents not having insurance.

                              {time}  2015

  That is from the Washington Post today.
  My goodness, how in the world can our friends from the other side of 
the aisle claim that they are offering an improvement on the status quo 
when they are not changing the proportion of the uninsured even 10 
years from now?
  This is a scathing indictment, and I don't expect to hear them talk 
much about their plan. And, if they do, they are not going to tell you 
about this, because this is embarrassing to them. They don't want this 
out. They don't want you to know about this. They want you to just keep 
on listening to the nonsense about death panels and school sex clinics, 
and they want to talk about the polarizing political issue of abortion. 
And I want to get to this issue of abortion in a little while.
  But I want to say that they want to use polarizing language, 
polarizing issues that divide Americans. They want to throw up scare 
tactics, all of it ultimately accruing to the benefit of the status quo 
now, which is an industry that reaps enormous magnitudes of profit at 
the expense of citizens who see their premiums escalate and see 
themselves denied coverage and see rescissions and see all these things 
that have cost the American economy dearly and the American middle 
class.
  This is a Washington Post quote: ``The Republican alternative will 
have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping 
up with the population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, 
which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population 
down to 4 percent.''
  How can the Republicans have a straight face and offer this bill? How 
can they look you in the eye, after months and months of all of these 
disruptive meetings, where people were disrupting meetings and causing 
so much trouble, causing so much fear, and this is what they have to 
show for it?
  Madam Speaker, I can't believe that they honestly are offering this 
as a proposal.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Grand Old Party, 
the Republican Party's alternative, will shave or cut $86 billion off 
the deficit in 10 years. But get this: the Democrats, according to the 
CBO, will cut $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill is 
fiscally superior to the Republican alternative.
  According to the Washington Post today, you can read it, according to 
the CBO, the Republican alternative only cuts $68 billion off the 
deficit in the next 10 years. The Democratic bill cuts $104 billion off 
the deficit. That is just about $40 million more.
  Wait a minute. Aren't these the guys who always complain about the 
deficit and spending and all this? Maybe that claim rings hollow.
  The Democratic bill, however, in other words, covers 12 times as many 
people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. Let me just 
say this again for people listening out there. I know you have been 
scared.
  They want to tell you that the Democrats want to take away Medicare. 
Not true. They are trying to tell you the Democrats are trying to 
change the scenario as it relates to this very polarizing issue among 
Americans, abortion. It basically keeps things as they are today. They 
are trying to talk about death panels and school sex clinics, and they 
are trying to say that health care reform is only about the uninsured.
  None of these things are true, and it is important to come to the 
House floor and refute these false allegations. It is not the case, it 
is not right, it isn't true.
  I just want to say I am so proud to be joined by one of the finest 
Members of this body, my dear friend from the great State of 
California, Diane Watson. She is going to get her papers together; but 
when she is ready to start talking, I am going to yield to her right 
away.
  I just want to say the Democratic bill that has been released covers 
12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican 
plan. It covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than 
the Republican plan. Yes, I am going to keep saying this on the House 
floor. It needs to be said.
  The fact is, today we had a lot of visitors in Washington, and I want 
to say welcome to those folks. My colleague from the great State of 
Minnesota, and I am so proud to be from Minnesota, my friend, 
Congresswoman Bachmann, invited people down, and folks came. And I am 
glad they showed up, because democracy is good, and it is good to have 
people here.
  Now, I will say that many of the people who came down to support my 
colleague from Minnesota, we probably didn't see the issue the same. 
But I just want to say, I was honored to have them in my office. I am 
so proud that I was able to talk to my colleagues.
  But here is the thing that broke my heart. As they were explaining to 
me what their concerns were, they were saying, I have been dropped 
because of a preexisting condition. They were saying, I have been 
unemployed and I can't find an insurance policy to cover me. They were 
saying, I am afraid that I am going to go bankrupt. My family doesn't 
have any money. I lost my job. My husband lost his job. What are we 
going to do? And I said, you know what? You got on the wrong bus coming 
here, my friend. This Democratic bill is the one you need to be looking 
at.
  The fact is that good people have been scared away from policy that 
is going to help them. Good people, made afraid that policies that are 
going to help them are not for them. And that is a shame.
  So we had to come down here to the House floor today to explain that 
the fact is that middle class, working-class people struggling to make 
ends meet are going to benefit from the Democrats' proposal.
  I just want to say that after years of the Republicans being in 
power, years where they had the House, the White House, the Senate, 
doing nothing at all to help Americans, Democrats are taking care of 
business right now. I am so

[[Page 26986]]

glad we had a lot of people and I was able to talk to constituents and 
others about this important issue of health care. Some of us started 
out not on the same page, but we ended up a lot closer together because 
I was able to say here are the true facts, not the made-up ones.
  I yield to the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honor for me to 
come down and join my colleague, Keith Ellison. He has been a driving 
force to bring reality to the public.
  Congressman Ellison, I want to thank you for your diligence. What 
really gets to me is the misstatements, the fear that has been put out 
to the public. And think about this: Why are people ranting about 
health coverage and not reasoning about it?
  They have made fun of our President, Barack Obama. They have 
disrespected him on this floor when a Member hollered out for the first 
time in the history of this House, ``You lie.'' I hope the world saw 
that and questioned what that was all about.
  When they talk about Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to be Speaker, and 
talk about PelosiCare, that it is going to take benefits away from 
seniors, those are lies.
  I tell people when they come up to me, remember, we started off 
trying to cover Americans that had no insurance, somewhere around 38 
million. Private insurance companies make profits off your health care. 
They make profits off the condition you are in. Why should health, good 
health, be profit-making? We should address the health needs of 
Americans.
  Now, you are going to hear the opposers say, You are putting our kids 
and our grandkids in debt. Well, they never said that when we fought an 
unnecessary war in Iraq, costing us $15 billion a month. If we were to 
send additional troops to Afghanistan, it is going to cost us $5 
billion. And what do we get as a result of that? Do you think we are 
going to be able to stabilize these nations thousands of miles away at 
the expense of our people and our country?
  Just today, there was a horrible massacre on one of our greatest and 
largest bases, Fort Hood in Texas. Think about all the medical 
personnel that would have to be there to care for those 31 that were 
injured. Twelve people lost their lives. And one of the suspects is a 
mental health professional, a major who is a licensed psychiatrist. 
What does that tell you?
  So what are we trying to do? If we want to be the strongest Nation on 
Earth, we have to be sure Americans are strong. We have to provide for 
those less able than many of us.
  You are going to hear people say you don't want government running 
your health care. They don't do anything successfully. Then you are 
already condemning our victory that some people are expecting in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and so on. If government doesn't do anything 
successfully, then we all ought to go home. We are a fraud.
  But ask this question: What is Medicare? What is Medicaid? What is 
Social Security? These are government-run programs as part of that 
safety net.
  In the richest country on Earth, why should anyone go hungry or go 
without health care? If we had a government-sponsored option, and let 
me just define for the people who don't understand the meaning of 
``option,'' ``option'' says you make the decisions. It is a 
misstatement to say that government will get in between you and your 
doctor. That is so untrue, and the people who are saying that know it.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield, is it not the case today 
that some insurance company bureaucrat can get between a patient and 
her doctor?
  Ms. WATSON. I chaired the Health and Human Services Committee in the 
California State Senate in Sacramento, California, for 17 years; and we 
put in place a program. We were always coming up against HMOs, health 
maintenance organizations. If a doctor prescribed a particular drug for 
his patient, they would have to call in to some other office, maybe it 
is the secretary or whatever, and say, Can the doctor prescribe this 
medicine for the patient? If it wasn't on the formulary, it won't 
happen.

                              {time}  2030

  So I know the experiences because being there 17 years and having 
people come and testify in front of us because an HMO said I want 
150,000 patients in my pool, and they are all-out in south central Los 
Angeles, our hospital closed out there, they were assigned to a 
hospital maybe 30 or 40 miles away, a mother with her three children 
would have to spend 3 hours trying to get health care. It is not 
accessible.
  I know of what I speak. I lived through it. We designed policies so 
we could address the human needs of all of our people. And we can't 
have a successful democracy if we discriminate. What I mean by 
discrimination, we fought the battles in the 1960s discriminating 
against people of color. Now we are trying to fight the battle of poor 
people, fight for them who cannot afford this expensive insurance.
  In my State of California, if we didn't have this plan, your 
insurance would go up by $1,800 for the year for a family of three. So 
I am doing everything I can. You know, we live in a State that is the 
first State in the Union to be a majority of minorities. What most 
people don't know, don't want to know, is most of our immigrants don't 
come from across the southern border, they come from across the Pacific 
Ocean. Vietnam--you have heard of some of these places--Korea, Japan, 
China, and they come with their own needs. We try to accommodate human 
beings in our State. Our State is the largest State in the Union, and 
we are suffering like many other States, but we are suffering to 
provide the necessary needs of our citizens.
  We say for all Americans, we can quibble over whether they are here 
legally or whatever, but what we are trying to do is provide quality 
health care for Americans.
  So I don't understand those people who are ranting and are outraged. 
They believe the lies they have been told.
  Mr. ELLISON. I talked to some of the people walking around today. I 
was impressed with how good and decent many of them were. Many didn't 
have the facts straight. Many were suffering with real problems with 
health care. I think we need to take the time to talk to people. The 
fact is everyone knows there are certain TV people and radio 
personalities, and I am not even going to give them credit by 
mentioning their names, but these people, because of entertainment and 
ratings, they try to play on tear and whip up anxiety among Americans 
who are just trying to put food on the table. So they get scared.
  People want to express themselves politically, but the leaders in 
front of them are not giving them good alternatives, they are just 
giving them fear. They are saying, Be afraid of those immigrants. Be 
afraid of those people over there who are not the same religion as you. 
Be afraid of these people over here. Just be afraid. As people are 
afraid, they are easier to manipulate. We ask people to overcome their 
fear and get the facts.
  If I may just offer a few more critiques of the Republican bill. Here 
is what The Washington Post said: Amazingly, the Democratic bill has 
already been through three committees and a merger process. It is 
already being shown to interest group and advocacy organizations and 
industry stakeholders. It has already made compromises and been through 
the legislative sausage grinder. And yet, it covers more people and 
saves more money than the blank-slate alternative proposed by House 
Republicans.
  Now I just want to ask the gentlelady from California, we have been 
working on health care for a long, long time. I have had to deal with 
angry folks at angry community meetings. People are worried. They are 
concerned. We have walked through that fiery furnace and done those 
tough town meetings. We have withstood all of that. You would think 
that our bill would be watered down to the point where it couldn't help 
anybody, but that isn't the case. The Democratic bills covers 12 times 
as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. How 
can

[[Page 26987]]

that be? The Republican plan, which was just recently introduced to the 
American people, actually doesn't save as much money and doesn't cover 
as many people as the Democratic plan when they are just getting 
started.
  You and I know when you first introduce a bill, it is just going to 
get sandpapered. People are going to wear it away. People show up and 
say, I don't like this part, and I don't like that part. After a while, 
your bill used to be here, and it is getting less and less. It doesn't 
meet as much of your vision, but that is okay, that is democracy. We 
have to come in here and we have to give and take and try and consider 
everybody's interests.
  But this Democratic bill, having gone through a very rigorous process 
of democracy, the writer here calls it a sausage grinder, still saves 
way more money and covers way more people than the Republican bill. I 
want to know, how can that possibly be? Where are these great ideas we 
have been hearing about?
  You remember during President Obama's speech in this very room, 
they're holding up pieces of paper, here is our plan, here is our plan, 
and they come up with a plan that is more expensive and doesn't cover 
as many people as the Democratic plan. There is a reason why the 
American people voted overwhelmingly to send Democrats to Congress last 
November because this is the best they could come up with. It is 
actually quite embarrassing. I feel a little bad for them.
  I yield back to the gentlelady.
  Ms. WATSON. I always say be a seeker of truth. I taught school for 
many years. I told my youngsters, you need to reason. Let's think this 
through together. I can tell you anything. Seek the truth. Check it 
out. When it is said that we are going to take benefits away from 
seniors, that is untrue.
  When it is said that government, who fails at everything it does, you 
know, how are they going to do this, we are not running the program. 
What we do is allow citizens to come to the marketplace and choose a 
plan, A, that they can afford; B, that is accessible; C, that will 
allow them to get into the coverage even if they have asthma, even if 
they had breast cancer, even if they have diabetes, they can come in 
and be covered.
  You can say to seniors under our plan, when you hit that doughnut 
hole, you won't go through the hole and hit rock bottom because we are 
going to close that hole.
  Mr. ELLISON. Which party was in power when the doughnut hole, the 
doughnut hole that people are falling into that needs to be fixed and 
is going to be fixed by the Democrats, what party was in power when the 
doughnut hole came to be?
  Ms. WATSON. The Republicans were in the White House, they had the 
Senate and this House. I was in here. We were in here until 6 in the 
morning. I watched them browbeat one of the Members. She had voted, and 
they brought her back and huddled around her, and she was in tears 
until she changed her vote.
  That was the worst thing we could do for seniors because when they 
fall into that hole after they have spent $2,700, they fall into that 
hole and they cannot afford to buy food or to pay their rent if they 
are going to buy their prescriptions that keep them living day by day.
  Why should an American, and particularly our seniors, have to make 
that kind of choice? We are not playing with this. You know, I have 
heard people say they have done it in secret in some dark, smoky room. 
It has been up on their e-mails, it has been up on their computers for 
weeks. There is a process that you go through and you do not violate 
the process in Congress. Every bill that comes out of a committee has 
to be heard, and most Members have time to speak to that bill and most 
Members vote on the bill with an audience out there.
  And if the bill gets a number of votes, then it leaves that 
committee. It might go to another, but everyone knows the process.
  Now they are saying well, you've taken three bills and you are 
blending them together and we don't know what is in those bills. I have 
even heard Members come up with these thick stacks of paper and say 
look at this. Well, when you write law that you expect to impact on 
Americans, you better put everything in there you mean, and that is 
where you use the word ``shall.'' I heard the minority leader say, Do 
you know how many times they used the word ``shall''? Well, if you want 
it to be law, you need to say ``shall.'' If you don't mean for it to 
become law, then you can make it permissive and say ``may.'' Let's 
explain the process to our people. Let's not keep the people ignorant. 
Let's educate them. As an educator, that is what I want to do.
  To finish, I want to let our seniors know that the majority of people 
in this Congress know that our health care system in this country is 
broken and we want to strengthen what is working. Medicare has provided 
health care for Americans age 65 and older for the last 44 years, and 
it is working. When they say they want a coverage like ours, we are 
covered under Medicare. And it will be strengthened under the House's 
reform legislation. The reform will mean better benefits at lower cost 
and will preserve Medicare solvency for years to come. And without 
reform for all Americans, health care costs will keep rising and could 
jeopardize Medicare's ability to keep covering the costs.
  Rising costs hits seniors, their wallets, too. And so with the 
average part D plus part B premium consuming an estimated 12 percent of 
the average Social Security benefit in 2010, and it will be 16 percent 
by 2025, so we know that the debate on reform has been intense, but it 
is a good thing. Let's get this all out in the open and then let's 
correct the misstatements. Let's be sure that we educate the people 
with the truth, and just know that nothing has been done behind closed 
doors that you have not heard.
  We can debate it on this floor, and we are going to do that. So I 
want to end by saying we can have a better America. We can keep our 
people healthy. We can have peace, but it starts here. And we need to 
come together as a House of Representatives; not as Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, fighting each other. We can express our 
positions, and we can do it with comity. We can do it with 
collegiality. We can do it by listening to someone else's position.
  I am going to truly close, but when I held my last community forum, I 
said: All of you have the right to be heard, but you don't have the 
right to disrupt and block me from hearing you. So if you do that, then 
you will be escorted toward the door. If you have a question, write it 
down. Be proud of your question and put your name on it. If you don't 
put your name on your question, it goes to the bottom of the list. So 
we will listen to you and respond to you, but you cannot block the 
communication.
  So what we are doing is trying to communicate with Americans out 
there in the field. We are going to express the truth the best we can. 
Thank you so much for having tonight's Special Order. We really 
appreciate your commitment and your dedication.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady and appreciate the gentlelady's 
remarks about collegiality, and also the gentlelady reassuring our 
seniors about what is really in the bill. This whole fear thing about 
scaring seniors about taking away their Medicare, I really don't 
appreciate. My dad was born in 1928 and my mom was born in 1938. Both 
of them are folks who would be classified as seniors, both very active, 
vibrant people, and both of them definitely active at the polling 
places and voting.

                              {time}  2045

  And they've actually asked me, Is this really true? And I have to 
explain, Mom, no, it isn't true. But the reality is this is a campaign 
tactic to try to scare seniors and try to scare all kinds of Americans. 
I'm of the mind that, let's not use fear tactics, let's use logic and 
truth.
  Here's a few facts:
  The House Republican bill will cover just about 3 million more 
Americans over the course of 10 years. Today, 83 percent of the 
nonelderly Americans

[[Page 26988]]

are insured. Under the GOP plan, 83 percent of nonelderly Americans 
would still be the proportion of the uninsured in 2019. No change.
  So I ask the gentlelady, look, if the problem today is the high 
percentage of the uninsured, people who are authorized to be in America 
and people who are nonelderly, if the proportion of uninsured is 17 
percent, shouldn't we be better off in 10 years? Under the Republican 
plan, we will not be. I think that is a complete failure of their 
effort.
  The Affordable Health Care for America Act put forward by the 
Democratic-led Congress extends coverage to 36 million more Americans. 
Today, 83 percent of the nonelderly Americans are uninsured. Under the 
Democratic plan, 96 percent of nonelderly Americans will be insured. 
That's what I call success. I hope some of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle come on and join this plan that's good for America.
  The House Republican bill does not reduce the number of people who 
must buy insurance on the individual market because they're self-
insured, don't have coverage of their employer, or lose their jobs. 
This segment of the market now pays the highest premiums and consumer 
abuses by the insurance industry. No change in this unfair practice.
  The Affordable Health Care for America Act put forward by the 
Democrats creates a health insurance exchange with a public plan as one 
of the choices people have that provides competition and offers large 
group rates to employees of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and 
Americans looking for jobs. Under the Democratic plan, affordable 
options and affordability credits make all the difference, something 
the Republican plan--even though they've had all this time to think of 
something good, haven't been able to think of anything good at all.
  Preexisting conditions. The Republican bill fails to require 
insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against 
Americans with preexisting medical conditions. Let me just say this one 
more time, Mr. Speaker. The Republican bill fails to require insurance 
companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with 
preexisting conditions.
  There's no wonder that they have and will spend their time this 
evening talking about the divisive, polarizing issue of abortion, this 
very important issue which has Americans of goodwill arguing both 
relatively strongly held positions, trying to get us fighting over that 
when we're talking about health care reform. They say, Don't worry 
about this health care reform. Let's talk about this divisive issue 
that has divided Americans for so long. This is not a bill about 
abortion. This is a bill about health care reform. Why don't they want 
to talk about that fact?
  The Republican bill does not repeal antitrust exemptions for health 
insurance companies. Why not? The Republican bill does not repeal 
antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies. Why do they want 
to protect the health insurance companies? Why don't they want the 
health insurance companies to compete? Who is getting PAC money from 
the health insurance companies? Let's find out.
  The House Republican bill does not include provisions to stop price 
gouging by insurance companies. Why not? The Affordable Health Care for 
Americans Act put forth by the Democrats--and, again, we've only had 
the White House for a few months and only had this Chamber, been the 
majority in the House for a couple of years; not long. We haven't been 
here long, but even though we haven't been here long, we've come up 
strong, because this bill, the Democratic bill, ends discrimination 
against Americans with preexisting medical conditions. The Democratic 
bill finally ends the antitrust exemption. The Democratic bill gives 
States $1 billion to crack down on price gouging by health insurance 
companies.
  The fact is American consumers and small businesses deserve better 
than what the Republican bill offers to them. The Democratic bill, the 
Affordable Health Care for America Act, is a fiscally responsible bill 
that will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years; way more, 
way more, $36 billion more than the Republican bill. And I want to 
know, if the Democrats can face this very difficult process that we've 
gone through all summer--I had health care forums in my district and so 
did the gentlelady from California. Some people came up very upset 
because they've been listening to some of these radio guys and some of 
these TV guys scaring them and giving them misinformation, so they come 
into the meeting upset, loaded for bear. They want to talk to me. I 
want to talk to you, Mr. Ellison. But when the facts come out, they're 
like, Oh, okay, I get it now. And we just ask people to keep their 
minds open.
  I just say that if the Republicans have a real alternative around 
health care, how come they didn't come up with anything in the House 
from 1994 to 2006? Nothing did they come up with. Oh, they did veto 
SCHIP. We've got to give them credit for that. Vetoed SCHIP. Vetoed 
State Children's Health Insurance Program; can you imagine that? Oh, my 
goodness. I think that that is not good service to the American people.
  I do hope we get some Republican votes on this bill because I think 
there has got to be some Republicans who say, You know what? Skip all 
the bickering. The Democrats have been open to our ideas when we 
offered them, but we didn't offer them because we would rather beat the 
Democrats at the polls than give Americans real health care reform. 
Think about that. They would rather beat the Democrats at the polls and 
try to use this as a political thing rather than say, You know what? 
We're going to do something for the American people. Oh, my goodness.
  Let me turn to this poster board I have here. The Democratic bill--
let's set the record straight. Here's a myth: The Democratic bill will 
hurt small businesses. Not true. If you heard it today or if you hear 
it later today, don't believe it. Small chemical facilities are already 
regulated by the DHS. The bill requires DHS to assess potential impacts 
of IST on small businesses. And $225 billion in grant funding is 
available for small businesses.
  This will interfere with business operations. The fact is is that 
this bill will not interfere with business operations, it will not be a 
boon to plaintiffs' attorneys, and it will not do any of these things 
that are claimed by the Republicans over and over and over again.
  We hear the Republicans say we need to have tort reform. Let me just 
say, if you have a loved one who has a medical error, you have a right 
to go to court over that. Don't let anybody scare you away from your 
right to go to court when a doctor or a hospital fails to meet medical 
standards.
  Ms. WATSON. Would you yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes, I will.
  Ms. WATSON. You know, it's always very interesting to me. I sat on 
the Judiciary Committee for 17 years and I carried the California trial 
lawyers' funding bill every other year. And of course opposition would 
say, frivolous. Well, if your right leg was amputated and the condition 
was in the left leg, they amputated your right leg, the first thing you 
would do is run to get the most high-powered lawyer you could and you 
would sue the doctor and the hospital out of business. So you can say 
frivolous cases, but when it comes to your own health and the health of 
your loved ones--and I haven't seen a company without its set of 
lawyers. So we use them when we want to be sure that the law works on 
behalf of ourselves and our loved ones. If it's for somebody else, it's 
frivolous. So let's think about what we're saying with tort reform.
  And we can lower the cost if we have quality health care, meaning we 
have quality personnel. And do you know there are provisions in our 
bill that will help to subsidize medical students that want to go into 
primary care? And so we want to build a whole cadre of quality health 
providers that will practice medicine on behalf of the human interest 
to keep our people healthy.
  So when we talk about tort reform, let's think it all the way through 
and don't treat it in a frivolous way.
  Thank you very much, and good night.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me just thank the gentlelady for that, because

[[Page 26989]]

the reality is that Republicans are saying, Oh, we have a plan on tort 
reform and we want to give tax cuts and tax breaks--they've been 
talking about fragments of their plan for a long time, but when the 
reality of their plan came out, it was pretty dismal. I mean, here's 
what Ezra Klein says, of the Washington Post: Republicans are learning 
an unpleasant lesson this morning. The only thing worse than having no 
health care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by the 
CBO, and making the House Democrats look good.
  We want to thank you for that.
  The Democratic bill covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 
billion more than the Republican plan. The New York Times, the Budget 
Monitor says: GOP leaves many uninsured.
  Again, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the 
alternative health care bill put forward by House Republicans would 
have little impact on extending health benefits to roughly 30 million 
uninsured Americans. You can go right down the ranks, but piece after 
piece shows that this Republican plan that they released is abysmal.
  I want to have some conversation about the Republican plan, because 
they've been beating up on the Democratic plan from the very beginning, 
yet it has gone through three committees. It has had a merger process. 
It has been beaten and smashed and attacked, and yet, still, still the 
Democratic bill is far and away superior to the Republican plan, 
maintains its public option. The fact is I think the American people 
are really going to start seeing who is looking out for their health.
  Let me turn now to a few health care stories if I may.
  A good friend, Amy. Amy says, ``I'm a graduate student working part-
time at a restaurant. I applied for individual health insurance through 
Medica, hoping to pay their nice low rate, $99 a month for a pretty 
good plan and a fairly low deductible; however, Medica denied my 
individual application because I marked on my application that I have 
anxiety and take medication for it. It is a little ironic; not having 
insurance gives me more anxiety.
  ``I was recently approved for group health insurance through a 
company that owns the restaurant I work for. However, to stay on the 
group plan, I have to maintain a workload of 24 hours a week on average 
over a year, which can be hard to do as a full-time student. This group 
insurance is through Medica, and I will be paying $95 each month, which 
is affordable for me. However, I got a letter from Medica saying that 
my anxiety is considered a preexisting condition, so any treatment or 
medication for it will not be covered for a year. After 1 year, I can 
appeal for coverage. In the meantime, I will continue to pay for my 
medication out of pocket and not go to therapy because it will be too 
expensive.
  ``Please pass Federal health care reform that includes a public 
health insurance option that is affordable to middle-income families in 
Minnesota.''
  This young lady would not be barred from getting health care 
insurance because of her anxiety, which the insurance company called a 
preexisting condition, yet under the Republican plan she still would 
be.
  David from Minneapolis: ``I am a small business owner and do provide 
health care to my employees, but this is a serious financial risk to my 
company. It's a moral issue, so I don't want to cancel health 
insurance, but I might have to in order to survive. It's scary to think 
about not being able to provide health insurance for employees or going 
under as a business. Knowing that I would always have access to 
reliable, affordable health care would relieve my fears.
  ``I would like to tell those who oppose health care reform that this 
is a moral issue. We should be taking care of each other. It's an 
embarrassment to our country to be one of the wealthiest countries and 
not have health care for all. Please pass Federal health care reform 
that includes a public insurance option.''

                              {time}  2100

  We've been joined by Jared Polis, who is an excellent advocate for 
the people's rights. He has been very vocal and has been a strong 
advocate of health care reform. I want to turn it over and yield to my 
friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to thank Mr. Ellison, certainly, for the kind 
introduction and for sharing very powerful stories.
  I have had the opportunity to share a number of stories on the floor 
of the House of Representatives, and these are all real people who are 
impacted. I think that, perhaps, my colleagues in the House and those 
watching us can see in themselves some of the experiences that American 
families go through.
  We're not just talking about the uninsured out there, some mysterious 
group that you're not a part of because you might have insurance. We're 
talking about American families, American families who are worrying 
because one of the parents lost a job; we're talking about soccer moms; 
we're talking about people with preexisting conditions.
  I want to briefly talk about immigration in the context of 
immigration and health care reform. I received some false information 
from an anti-immigrant group. The name of this group is the Federation 
for American Immigration Reform. They're actually a group that fights 
against immigration reform, but their name says that they're for 
immigration reform.
  They believe--and I believe that similar comments have been echoed on 
the floor of the House of Representatives--that there is in the health 
care bill before us something that allows illegal aliens to game the 
system and to access taxpayer-subsidized health care benefits.
  What they're seeking to do--and it would significantly raise the cost 
of the bill should they succeed--is to prevent our undocumented 
population, some 12 to 15 million people who reside in our country and 
who contribute in so many ways, from buying insurance through the 
exchange.
  Now, remember, the ``exchange'' is something that doesn't exist 
today. It's set up under law. It is not subsidized health care. It is 
where small businesses or individuals will go. They, of course, will 
pay the full market rate. There will be many private companies that 
will participate in the exchange and that will design products for the 
exchange. It is not a benefit. It is simply a marketplace. We've never 
before barred anyone from being able to purchase a product like health 
insurance at full price because of one's citizenship or immigration 
status, nor is it good policy.
  I think that many of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that 
we shouldn't have as large an undocumented population as we do. I dare 
say we shouldn't have an undocumented population at all. There might be 
different solutions to that. Mine would simply be to normalize the 
status of those who are here, who work hard and who contribute so much 
to our country. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who also 
agree we shouldn't have a large undocumented population, might, in 
fact, have a different solution to that.
  Insofar as they are here, we should, all of us, regardless of where 
we stand ideologically, want them to buy insurance with their own money 
if they are willing to. They certainly all won't; but to the extent 
that they do, they are less of a burden on the rest of us. Anybody who 
would seek to prevent them from accessing the exchange, which will 
really be ``the place''--``the place'' for individuals to buy 
insurance--effectively is saying that taxpayers should subsidize 
illegal immigrants.
  Frankly, I think that there are many across the country who have a 
problem with that. To prevent undocumented immigrants from being able 
to buy insurance from the exchange is saying that taxpayers should pay 
for their health care. They're going to go to the emergency rooms. They 
won't have insurance. The costs will be shifted to the rest of us and 
to taxpayers. We should encourage our undocumented population to buy 
insurance with their own money. Again, I don't think all of

[[Page 26990]]

them will, but some of them will. That's a very good thing, and I'm 
very hopeful that many undocumented immigrants will participate in this 
exchange.
  The exchange makes health care affordable for individuals. Right now, 
we have an issue where individuals don't have the buying power of big 
companies. If you have a preexisting condition, which is that scarlet 
letter that so many residents of our country wear, forget about it. 
Whether you're a citizen or a noncitizen, if you're an individual, the 
exchange will allow you to pool your risk. The exchange has the buying 
power that previously has only been enjoyed by large corporations. It 
allows one to negotiate the very best rates with insurers. Once again, 
the exchange is not a benefit. It is not a product.
  Mr. ELLISON. I just want to say thank you, Madam Speaker, for 
allowing us the time for the Progressive message. I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________